Originally Posted by
Lyman
Wrong, it was 2:10:16. For eleven seconds the PF may have been following duff data. Your statement is nonsense, unless you ignore the possibility that eleven seconds means nothing, which you would do....
It was 02:10:15.9. How you read that depends on whether you're working in decimal places or significant figures. PF calls for control at 02:10:06.4, meaning that it's more like 10.5 seconds.
We know that the CAS was actually indicating *low* speed rather than high, so increasing pitch angle does not tally with what may have been displayed on the speed tape. We know that it's likely that the erroneous drop in altitude might have led to a pitch up command, but not of that magnitude and not for that length of time.
PJ2 you say the a/c would not keep rolling after ap loss, but I think you mean in the context of Normal Law. In Roll Direct, it would keep rolling, NO?
No. The flight surfaces would return to neutral, and the aircraft would passively attempt to hold bank angle in the same way as a traditional airliner. It won't actively try to hold a lateral flightpath.
It has always been a challenge to separate conclusions from their bias, and their consequent growth into 'fact'.
With all due respect, that's pretty rich coming from someone who's thrown accusations of broken vertical stabs, snapped jackscrews and stuck autopilots at the aircraft without a single bit of supporting evidence!
(I know my position is largely theoretical too - but at least the phenomena of pulling up due to startle effect, confirmation bias and flight deck command gradient are known and have been studied!)
The pilots seem somewhat incompetent, that becomes fact, and subject to constant repetition.
That's how you're choosing to read it. The crew made mistakes in terms of handling and CRM, certainly. But that's a long way from claiming they were generally incompetent.